Women’s inheritance rights under Hindu Law

In a landmark judgement handed down in December 2022, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh applied the constitutional principle of equality to protect the rights of daughters and granddaughters in matters of succession under the Hindu law. The case is significantly associated with the concept of women's property or stridhan under Hindu law. Stridhan implies the property acquired by a woman through inheritance or partition, or by way of gifts from her relatives, or the properties acquired through her employment and purchases with stridhan. 

In the case Shishubar Dhali v Chitta Ranjan Mondol and others (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2003), one Rukkhini Dashi had purchased a land through her stridhan and after her death, that property passed to her daughter Hazari Sundory Dashi. Hazari, in turn, passed it on to her daughter Elokeshi Mondol, who lived in a different village. Elokeshi entrusted the land's documents pertaining to the property with her paternal uncle, however, the land was eventually recorded in the said uncle's name in the S.A. record.

Therefore, Elokeshi filed a suit against her uncle on the grounds of breach of trust.  Main issues of this case were whether the suit property was Rukkhini's stridhan and whether it could lawfully devolve upon the plaintiff Elokeshi, Rukkhini's granddaughter. The arguments of the defendants were that the land in question was not Rukkhini's stridhan rather it was their joint family property and Elokeshi could not have any lawful rights in the land.  The trial court ruled in Elokeshi's favor by holding that the suit land was Rukkhini's stridhan and cited the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 recognising a granddaughter's legal rights to inherit her grandmother's stridhan. This judgement was reaffirmed by the District Judge's Court in the appeal filed by the defendants, which prompted another appeal preferred to the High Court Division and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.

The appellants argued that the Act of 1929 is applicable only to the followers of Mitakshara school and highlighted that women's property or stridhan has no relevance with the Act. Moreover, they argued that according to the Dayabhaga school, which is followed by the respondents, a woman's inherited property does not become her stridhan, she only holds a limited interest in it and after her death, it passes on to the next heir of the person from whom she had inherited the property.

The respondents, on the other hand, emphasised on Elokeshi's inheritance referring various sources of Hindu Law. They referred 'the Dayabhaga' by Jimuta Vahana, and argued that daughters inherit stridhan absolutely, similar to the sons. There is no express text which prevents a woman from disposing of her stridhan property as she wishes. Thus, Elokeshi lawfully inherited her grandmother's land after her mother's death. 

Mr. Prabir Neogi, involved in this case as Amicus Curiae of the Court, suggested that constitutional principles should be applied to address the ambiguities in the interpretation of personal laws. When an ambiguity arises in a particular segment of law, all relevant sources of that law (i.e., statutes and customs) should be read together to find out the correct stance. Thus, the court emphasised the need for uniform interpretation and referred to relevant texts of Hindu law and some notable precedents. 

To maintain harmony between the texts of Hindu law, if all the nuances of the Dayabhaga law are read together, it can be perceived that a daughter inherits her mother's stridhan absolutely like her sons. It does not become her widow's estate or any other kind of property on which she only has a limited interest. Hence, the notion of equality can be found within the tenets of Hindu Dayabhaga law regarding the devolution of women's property or stridhan. Again, if the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 of India is analysed, it can be understood that the principle of 'equality' between male and female has been ensured as it declares that property of a Hindu female will be her absolute property, including stridhan or women's property. As there is no such law in Bangladesh, the court interpreted the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

The Bangladesh Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law as the fundamental rights under article 27. Through article 28, it prohibits discrimination on any grounds, such as race, religion, caste, sex or place of birth and states that women should have equal rights as men in every sphere of State and public life. Article 19 of the Constitution also enshrines the significance of equitable distribution of wealth among citizens and equality of opportunity and participation of women in all spheres of national life as a fundamental principle of state policy.

After interpreting all relevant sources of Hindu law, constitutional principles of equality and scholarly opinions with the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Division finally observed that the disputed land was in fact Rukkhini's stridhan, and it will lawfully devolve upon Elokeshi and that daughter's daughters, are equally eligible to inherit stridhan or women's property. This decision sets a landmark precedent for gender-inclusive interpretations of personal laws, in line with the constitutional principles of equality which paves the way for more equitable inheritance rights for women within the legal framework.

The writer is Lecturer in Law, East West University.